Democrats win the 1860 Election

[Luke Freet]

It's often brought up in history courses I've taken, how the dividing of the Democrats during the 1860 election between Breckinridge & Douglas allowed Lincoln to win the 1860 election. One wonders what would have happened if the Democrats had managed to compromise & form a unity ticket (as Breckinridge wanted). It would be safe to assume, baring any issue against whatever united candidate they fielded in this scenario, or other hard to determine scenario, that the Democrats would win the White House, while Lincoln would have come in with a still reasonable about of electors.

What would this mean for the country? Would South Carolina have seceded in December of 1860 (I doubt it)? Would the Southern states remain in the Union some time longer? Or was the paranoia against abolitionists too ingrained to go back? And if the south doesn't secede, would we have seen a reverse Civil War break out in Northern, pro-Abolitionist states (personally doubt but interesting to consider)?

 

[jackt62]

In fact, Lincoln won election with 180 electoral votes (59.4%) vs. combined electoral votes for the 2 Democratic candidates (Douglas and Breckenridge) totaling just 84 (27.7%). So if the Democratic Party had been united under 1 candidate, Lincoln would still have won election. Even if the wild card factor of John Bell's Constitutional Union Party is added to the mix, that party's 39 electoral votes (12.8%) would still not put Lincoln out of reach. It is true that in the popular vote, Lincoln's total of 1,865,908 (39.8%) was less than Douglas and Breckenridge's combined total of 2,228,221 (47.5%). It is hard to envision a scenario where a Democratic ticket could have prevailed in 1860, given the fact that just 4 northern states that went for Lincoln (NY, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana) accounted for combined electoral votes totaling 98, which is more than the 88 electoral votes of all 11 states that seceded and formed the Confederacy.

 

[GwilymT]

It's often brought up in history courses I've taken, how the dividing of the Democrats during the 1860 election between Breckinridge & Douglas allowed Lincoln to win the 1860 election. One wonders what would have happened if the Democrats had managed to compromise & form a unity ticket (as Breckinridge wanted). It would be safe to assume, baring any issue against whatever united candidate they fielded in this scenario, or other hard to determine scenario, that the Democrats would win the White House, while Lincoln would have come in with a still reasonable about of electors.

What would this mean for the country? Would South Carolina have seceded in December of 1860 (I doubt it)? Would the Southern states remain in the Union some time longer? Or was the paranoia against abolitionists too ingrained to go back? And if the south doesn't secede, would we have seen a reverse Civil War break out in Northern, pro-Abolitionist states (personally doubt but interesting to consider)?

I think that if there were a unified democratic ticket which managed to win (long shot) then there wouldn't have been rapid secession in the winter of 1860. That said, it seems clear that powerful political forces in the south did not want a compromise, through election or otherwise - thus the democratic split. They were hell bent on secession.

 

[jackt62]

Perhaps the scenario by which the Democratic Party wins in 1860 is to pull off a repeat of their 1856 victory. That is to say, field a northern Democrat with sympathetic ties to the south as was the case with Buchanan. In fact, following that formula would necessitate the Democrats (northern and southern) unifying behind Douglas as a single candidate. A Douglas candidacy might have made enough inroads into Lincoln's Republican strength to erode his margin of victory. But then again, 1860 was not 1856; the four intervening years had hardened both sides into assuming ever more rigid positions given events including "Bloody" Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and John Brown's raid.

 

[NedBaldwin]

It's often brought up in history courses I've taken, how the dividing of the Democrats during the 1860 election between Breckinridge & Douglas allowed Lincoln to win the 1860 election. One wonders what would have happened if the Democrats had managed to compromise & form a unity ticket (as Breckinridge wanted). It would be safe to assume, baring any issue against whatever united candidate they fielded in this scenario, or other hard to determine scenario, that the Democrats would win the White House, while Lincoln would have come in with a still reasonable about of electors.

What would this mean for the country? Would South Carolina have seceded in December of 1860 (I doubt it)? Would the Southern states remain in the Union some time longer? Or was the paranoia against abolitionists too ingrained to go back? And if the south doesn't secede, would we have seen a reverse Civil War break out in Northern, pro-Abolitionist states (personally doubt but interesting to consider)?

As Jack pointed out, adding the Democrat votes wouldnt beat Lincoln; the unified ticket would have had to outperform how they did in reality to switch a couple states that Lincoln won my a whisker -- Illinois and Indiana.

Assuming they could find a candidate to do that, the war would have been delayed but the level of unrest in the north would increase.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Short answer: a Breckenridge presidency in 1860 forestalls secession, but merely postpones it until the Republicans win in 1864.

I can't see Southerners backing Douglas in 1860 so we're looking at a scenario where Douglas gets sick and dies shortly after the Lincoln-Douglas debates. With Douglas dead, Northern Democrats find Breckenridge acceptable. Without the Democrats splitting, no Constitutional Union party.

Historically, Breckenridge, Douglas, and Bell won a combined 123 electoral votes. That's the entire future Confederacy plus all the border states.

Lincoln had 180 electoral. Threshold for winning was 152. Where do we find those 29 votes for a Democrat win?

Democrats took IL, IN, and PA in 1856. However, Lincoln won a majority (not just a plurality) of the popular vote in those states in 1860, albeit a slim one in IN.

Democrats also took NJ in 1856, when it had a winner-take-all system. In 1860, NJ had a system that split it's electoral votes based on the popular vote (what a concept!) so Lincoln got 4 and an anti-Lincoln fusion ticket got 3, despite anti-Lincoln getting nearly 52% of the popular vote.

If NJ still has a winner-take-all system and IN tilts slightly the other way, that's 20 votes toward Breckenridge.

IL went to Lincoln by a slim margin in 1860, but I if home-state hero Douglas couldn't beat Lincoln then how could Breckenridge? I think the only way this happens is if Lincoln isn't the Republican candidate. Even that it is a questionable scenario. In 1856, Buchanan picked up 44% to Fremont's 40%, with the remaining 16% going to Fillmore's Know Nothings. Most of the Know-Nothings in the Northern states threw in with the Republicans because most of them were ex-Whigs.

 

[Library Lady]

If the Democrats had won, Wisconsin might have left the Union. This threat was the backdrop for the worst maritime disaster on the Great Lakes, the sinking of the Lady Elgin.

What Brought the Lady Elgin to Chicago? | Winnetka Historical Society

www.winnetkahistory.org

Lady Elgin Marine Disaster and Shipwreck-Milwaukee County Wisconsin - Milwaukee County Wisconsin

Lady Elgin Marine Disaster and Shipwreck-Milwaukee County Wisconsin

www.linkstothepast.com

Lost on the Lady Elgin, attributed to Henry Clay Work who also wrote Marching Through Georgia.

 

[gentlemanrob]

If Douglas died in office Herschel V. Johnson former Governor of Georgia would have assumed the office of President. Not a lot has been wrote on Johnson but there is one biography on Johnson. Johnson was a Former Governor and U.S. Senator. I think Johnson would have had a hard time with the role of President.

 

[jackt62]

From a historical perspective, the wedge issue of slavery would have had to be dealt with sooner or later. Somehow electing a Democrat as President in 1860 would simply delay the inevitable rupture between slave and free states.

 

[wausaubob]

Its a very interesting question. But the beginning of the speculation is Douglas quitting the nomination process as a concession to the risk of secession.
If that happens, there is a good chance that the secession crisis is postponed until 1868.
Even by 1864 the US economy would have substantially recovered. Without the advent of the US Civil War immigration resumes at normal levels by 1862.
The cotton growing southern states, the 10 most southern states, were coming off an extraordinary years 1856-1860. Its hard to see how that prosperity lasts as inventories of cotton goods in Asia and eastern Europe become excessive and the textile trade slows down.

 

[wausaubob]

Even by 1864, secession would have looked like a poor solution among voters in Tennessee and Virginia. Its also difficult to see how a President Breckinridge was going to work with a Congress which was becoming more Republican and with a large contingent of Unionist anti secession representatives.